Foundations

The primary principles and building blocks of Positive Masculinity.

Male Authority – Provisioning vs. Duty

I’ve been watching Outlaw King on Netflix recently. There’s a part where the wife of Robert the Bruce says ‘Power is making decisions, and whatever course you are charting, I choose you, my husband’ It struck me that my own wife had said almost these same words to me in 2005. When I’d decided to take a job in Orlando that would uproot us from family and friends. There was no “,…but what about my friends, career, etc.?” from her and I had no hesitation to consider anything but taking the position. She said, “You are my husband, I go where you go.”

How many men hold a default Frame in their marriage? Many women are reluctant to even accept their husband’s last name today. There’s a lot of bullshit reasons for this, but the core truth is that women have no confidence in their man in the long term. They don’t trust his ‘course’. There’s holding Frame, and then there’s establishing a long term Frame, a paradigm, a reality of his own, that defines a man’s authority in his marriage and family relationships. Women today still want marriage, but few want to defer to their husband’s ‘course’. They don’t trust him with her life.

And why would they? For the past four or five generations men have been portrayed in popular culture as untrustworthy. Either they are Beta buffoons in need of women’s uniquely female ‘reasoning’ (which is really male reasoning with breasts) to save them from themselves, or they’re malicious Alpha malcontents (or perverts) also in need of female correction to bring them to female approved justice. It’s the retribution fantasy of feminism played out in popular media, but the societal result is generations of women who have no inherent respect of men and even less trust in any beneficial course they might plot out for them as future wives.

There’s also the male perspective to consider in this. Most men approach their marriage and long term relationships from what is ostensibly an egalitarian perspective. “Equality”, playing fair, being an “equal partner” a pretense of egalitarianism, is all a cover story for a power dynamic that is truly based on resource dynamics. In a ‘modern marriage’, male authority, even just the idea of it, is ceded by default to the woman. I’ll explain why in a moment.

Today’s marriage stats and the socioeconomic variables within marriage point to a very cold truth; if you make less money than your wife, statistically, your marriage is far more likely to dissolve. In couples where a woman outearns her husband divorce rates increase. Virtually every article written about this power dynamic attempts to paint the men involved as ‘feeling threatened‘ by their wives’ success, but the visceral truth can be distilled through the process of women’s Hypergamy. As you might guess, our feminine-centric social order can never allow for an unflattering picture of women, thus men must look like ridiculous, insecure, man-babies – this is another piece of the puzzle – but the stats don’t lie, only the reasoning for them misleads us culturally.

In an “egalitarian” marriage it is actually financial considerations that imbalance that idealistic fantasy of a “coequal partnership”. Men and masculinity are made to look ridiculous, insecure, potentially violent and incompetent on a social scale. This effort to delegitimize anything male has been going on since the late 1960s. The social impact of this has resulted in several generations whose default impression of men in general is one of distrust. Either distrust based in men’s potential for abusiveness, or largely more a distrust based in a default presumption of incompetence. Women cannot trust a man with her life because a majority of men are ridiculous buffoons, no better than big children and now we add that almost 40% of them are outearned by their wives.

Is it any wonder women have no default respect for a man’s course for their lives? In fact, given these modern circumstances, fantasies of an egalitarian marriage being the ideal notion are really the only way to justify marriage at all for women. Thus, we’ve crafted a new ideal of marriage that furnishes women with legal and social failsafes to make what looks like a really horrible, life-long attachment to a buffoon or an abuser just palatable enough to have women believe things might work out for them. Don’t worry ladies, the egalitarian ideal, that any potential husband worth your consideration will subscribe to wholesale, provides you not only with options that will absolve you of all responsibility for his (and your own) failures, but you’ll never have to really do anything he says. The law is on your side, and the very premise of an egalitarian marriage frees you from ever having to go along with one of his half-baked life plans for the both of you. In fact, as long as you make more money than him, you’ll almost surely be doing the ‘course’ setting for the both of you.

Needless to say this is not conducive to women entertaining a default deference to men’s authority. If women’s baseline impression of men is one of incompetence, ridiculousness and distrust, and then you combine it with the fact that over a third of them wont be earning the same financially we begin to see the reasons for the decline in marriage today. If the default perception of men is one of expected incompetence, why would a woman ever want to get married?

This is kind of a quandary. In marriage, a man’s authority today only extends to this monetary wealth – there is no inherent authority associated with being male despite what feminist bleat about ‘male privilege’. Wealth enforces will, but women still seek to find ways around accepting that authority by assuming control of that wealth. This is one reason why “financial abuse” has been fashioned into a form of spousal abuse, but there are many other means of emotional control that mitigates male authority-by-wealth.

Even when a man is the primary breadwinner his means to authority in his marriage is still mitigated. A man’s provisioning for his wife and family has always been considered a ‘manly duty’. Even the most masculinity-confused, Vichy Males are still conditioned to assume providership as a masculine trait that is ‘non-toxic’ and approved by their teachers. In most Trad-Con thought a man isn’t even to be considered a “man” unless he can prove his competence in generating more resources than he needs for himself. The direction of every aspiration he has must be applied to providing for a future wife, their children, likely their (her) extended family and then extended to society. By the old set of books a man can’t even be given the title of “man” (or “a real man”) unless he can prove he’s prepared himself to be a good husband, father and community leader.

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with a strong desire to fulfill this provisioning agenda, the men who do accept this as their “manly duty” are conditioned to only see their sacrifices as their expected responsibility. They are actively discouraged from ever assuming any authority might be forthcoming in exchange for their sacrifices. Not even a man’s wealth is a guarantee of authority; certainly not if he’s been conditioned to believe that an egalitarian marriage is an ideal, much less a possibility.

And now we come full circle – the promulgation of an egalitarian ideal in marriage, in gender equity, in the retribution and restitution that feminism is based on, all of this and more has the latent purpose of stripping men of any concept of authority, while enforcing the ideal of male responsibility. In The Second Set of Books I made the case that most (Beta) men today live by, or would like to live by, an old social contract that on the surface seems noble. They believe in an anachronism that promises them that honor, duty, chivalry and a default respect of women will, sooner or later, be appreciated by a woman with the “quality” enough to appreciate it and show that appreciation by accepting him for her intimate attentions. Only later do they come to realize that their dedication to that anachronism is misplaced and the exchange of duty for authority is not only erased, but he’s perceived as a “toxic” monster or a ridiculous “macho” fool for ever expecting that exchange. The world is actually playing by a second set of books that expects all of his ‘honor-bound’ beliefs are his responsibility, but nothing he sacrifices grants him any authority.

Last week I hosted a Special Edition of the Red Man Group in which we discussed whether a married man today is by default Blue Pill or Beta.

RMG_Patriarchs_Title_defaultIt’s almost impossible to broach this topic without accusations of bias or personal circumstance coloring a man’s perspective of marriage – and that’s from either side of the topic. I wasn’t endorsing marriage in this; if anything I made a case against marriage based on the same questioning of men’s authority I’ve explored in this essay. By today’s standards, marriage is far too dicey a prospect for me to ever advocate for. But how far are we willing to take this abandoning of dominance hierarchies in intersexual relationships? I recently got into a debate as to whether monogamous relationships – outside formal marriage – were even beneficial for men today. In that discussion we dissected the history of monogamy and in human relations it’s at least somewhat accepted that monogamy and two-parent investment in offspring was a dynamic that’s been beneficial to our own and some other species. I think that in the past, when social circumstance was different, the concept of monogamy and the institution of marriage were instrumental in our advancement and largely beneficial. All that’s changed now and much of the second set of books I referred to in this essay is predicated on an egalitarianism that has erased male authority and placed it on the shoulders of women who are ill-equipped (and honestly not wanting) to use that authority.

This last sentence here is going to seem like heresy to those invested in blank-slate, egalitarian equalism and fempowerment, but the truth is evident and unignorable that an evolved patriarchal authority has progressed us to an age where we’ve become prosperous enough to entertain thoughts of abandoning it. Stripping men of authority while still expecting a default, and total, responsibility is a really good summation of the two sets of books – the conflict between the old and the new social contract. And yes, I’m aware of the all the arguments that this state of disempowering men is by some political design. Destabilizing the family starts with delegitimizing male authority and confusing generations of men about the aspects of masculinity. Doubt and self-loathing are key in men policing other men for presumptions of authority. It’s crabs in the bucket – when one man presumes authority there need to be ten more to pull him back down into confusion and doubt.

So where do we go with this from here? Even the most ‘Con’ of Trad-Con women will still default to their fempowerment conditioning when presented with a default male authority they are supposed to follow. Can a man be a leader in his own home anymore? MGTOWs will tell you no, and they’d be right. You can’t out-Alpha the state. But the state is still comprised of men and women with their own preconceptions and belief-sets. Our evolved firmware still predisposes us to conventional gender roles, and that predisposition is also one of women expecting  male competence, decisiveness and dominance. Women still want a man to follow in spite of their conditioning to distrust men’s competence. Maybe a new form of monogamy is in order. Egalitarianism is a dead end, it only defaults to 100% female authority and 100% male responsibility. But perhaps at some point, when things get so bad that women are forced to take a chance on the men they think are potential buffoons and abusers, a new kind of “marriage” can come out of the morass that egalitarianism has made of marriage.

How do we get back to a state of male authority based on a woman’s trust of her husband? I would like to believe I have this with my wife today, but I know that this is tenuous from the perspective of true, actionable authority. I once came down hard on a pastor who was advising the women of his congregation to “allow” their husbands to lead them. He was basically asking the women to stand down and trust God that their husbands we’re actually worthy of their trust. He didn’t know it, but his entire premise stemmed from women already acknowledging that they had ultimate authority over their husband as a given. Most pastors are pussy-whipped, so this default authority is usually presumed as a sexual threat-point women will exercise over their husbands. What he didn’t understand was that women’s authority is his default for a much deeper, more socially expansive reason. So even to ask women to allow their husbands to exercise ‘headship’ is ludicrous – it’s something even those women have no power to do because the presumption of authority is always in their favor. They can’t allow their men authority over them because the social paradigm they live in wont allow them to allow it.

The Golden Ticket

Imagine, if you will, that you buy a lottery ticket and you win. After taxes the payoff is $2 million. Not an exorbitant amount by today’s standards, but still quite a lot of money for the average paycheck to paycheck person. For some it may be what could be described as Fuck You Money, easily enough for most people to retire on very comfortably.

How would this newfound fortune change your life? How would it change your family and your friend’s dealing with you? Would they be happy for you? Maybe jealous? Would you be able to manage the changes in your daily routine? If you were accustomed to one lifestyle and then switched to a more affluent lifestyle would it be a good change? Or would you become someone else?

Now lets say you could possibly win $100 million if you made an almost certain bet. There were still some risks involved, but nothing that would threaten your life in the short term. How would winning this kind of money reflect on your daily routine? Would it be different than your winning $2 million? Money would cease to be an object for you for the rest of your life and likely the lives of your children, maybe even grandchildren and all you really had to do was make a smart bet that you believed would pay off.

What if you only won $1 million or $500,000, but you were only making $36,000 a year and scraping by the best you could? Again, all you have to do is look for the best opportunity to make a short term sacrifice and the money would be yours. Would you compromise your ‘principles’ (assuming you have any) temporarily to change your life in the long term more significantly?

Imagine you had a Golden Ticket that had a potential to win you $70,000 per year or if you played things right it had the potential to earn you $10 million per year if you were wise enough to capitalize on it. How would that change your outlook on life?

What rationales would that prompt you to in order to reconcile that other people might not have the same potential for cashing in –without really earning it – that you do?

Here’s your Ticket

Okay, got that in your head now? Good. Now imagine that you’re given this Golden Ticket at the tender age of 12 years old. It’s handed to you and you’re told, “Keep this ticket with you forever. You can redeem it for more money while you’re young, but the longer you hold on to it the less it will be worth. Even still, it should be valuable for most of your life if you can manage to hold on to it.” And even after you’ve cashed the ticket in you can still retain it for a time, because some people have been able to trade one prize for a larger one by taking the ticket back and redeeming it for a better prize later.

Now you begin to believe that you deserve the biggest prize because, well, you’ve been deprived of things. You’re special; special enough to know you deserve the very best after having been deprived of these things as one of a long line of people who’ve also been deprived of things – the best things – or so they’ve told you.

You could always earn some money and get the things you and your people have never been able to reliably get, at least, again, that’s what they’ve told you. You have a lot of personal potential, you’re independent, you have a lot of respectable strengths, so you know you could always merit the things you deserve. But you still have this Golden Ticket in your hand, why wouldn’t you use it? You could earn some money, maybe a lot, but it will never be as reliable or as much as the money the Golden Ticket could net you – if you know just when to redeem it.

Stipulations

All that said, there are going to be a few stipulations to this lottery, but still, they’re not as steep when you compare them to having to actually earn a similar prize.

The first stipulation: You must stay physically fit. In fact, the better you look the better your potential prize could be. As you age this potential decays, but even still, you occasionally see some people cash out their ticket for great prizes despite their age. They just had to apply themselves more in the gym to get it.

The second stipulation: You must be agreeable, accommodating, even a bit flirty. You must put forward the impression that you are someone who genuinely deserves the best prize that the ticket might offer to a special person like you. You must give the perception that the experience of you deserves the highest potential prize imaginable.

The third stipulation: You must position yourself in social situations where the potential for the biggest payout for your ticket can be maximized. Sometimes, not always, but often these settings might make you uncomfortable, but hey, you wanted to make the most of the ticket, right? This stipulation really isn’t all that discomforting when you realize that once you have cashed in your ticket you’ll be the one deciding where you live and who you’ll choose to associate with anyway. At least that’s what the lottery organizers would have you believe.

There are a few more minor stipulations, but, for all of this, you still deserve the biggest prize that opportunity might bring your way. So, while the best thing would be for you to stay in shape and be ready for a big prize, the people playing the same lottery as you – most with the same potential – will tell you none of this really matters. They insist that you just being you is enough for you to win a big prize. Or it should be.

It’s almost as if they want you to believe that you can dismiss all the stipulations and still make out pretty good. In fact they praise you for going against the stipulations. They complain about how unfair these rules are and that for people as deprived as themselves, and for as long as they and their predecessors have been deprived, they should simply be given the highest, best and most secure forms of the prize – all irrespective of the very minimal stipulations as they are.

This is the Golden Ticket! How dare anyone place prerequisites on us to get the prizes we so thoroughly deserve. How dare anyone make us earn our birthright. But for all this discontent, the rules of the game still apply, and the people who embrace and master the stipulations largely seem to get the biggest and best prizes. And the ones complaining about the stipulations only seem to drag down the people with the same Golden Ticket, and their prizes are usually nothing compared to the people who take the stipulations to heart.

The Agreement

Finally, and maybe most importantly, there is one last detail of this lottery to consider. In order to keep the biggest and best prizes you have to sign a very loose and totally non-binding contract that only benefits you and ensures you will continue to be paid dividends should you decide to renege on the agreement and take your ticket back to use it again. The contract can be broken by you at any time, and even when you do you’ll still receive a substantial percentage of your original prize in monthly installments and usually for the rest of of your life.

Still, your signing this contract will limit your capacity to play this lottery in the future. If you see the potential for a better prize after you’ve signed the contract of limitations you’ll be less able to capitalize on it. However, the way that the contract is written it doesn’t necessarily exclude you from winning and even bigger prize should the opportunity arise. Your ticket reserves the right to be redeemed for other prizes if you make some wise bets.

So, at the end here, we get to the larger point of this metaphor; how would this ticket change the way you live your life? How would it influence your future decisions? How would the ticket affect your personal relationships with your best friends, some of whom have tickets themselves? How would the subconscious knowledge of the ticket alter your dealings with a husband, a wife, the children you may have or your immediate family?

Would the ticket define who you will become in life?

Emotional Differences

The following was from a reader’s comment exchange I had back in March. I wanted to add this here before I move on to the Rational process, because it think it encapsulates a lot of the (often misguided) presumptions we have when it comes to the primary importance we apply to our Emotional process. As I mentioned last week, for millennia now we’ve elevated our Emotional process of interpreting our reality to mythical importance. So insaturated is this importance in our personal and cultural being that to even question it seems sacrilegious. We are literally born into a dependence on emotions for our own survival. That is part of our earliest development, but the conditioning that gives rise to the primacy of emotionalism is layered onto us for the rest of our lives. Emotionalism is the religion that we’ve fashioned from our Emotional interpretive process.
Women practice emotional manipulation and men practice emotional detachment. It’s been a game playing out for thousands of years. Somehow the roles got scrambled in the last century. Things will balance out one way or another in the coming future.

What’s been popularized in our social consciousness as ‘emotional detachment‘ is not a manipulation tactic of men. Men’s mental firmware processes emotion differently from women, but because we live in a feminine-primary social order we’re conditioned to believe that the way women process emotion is the “correct” way for men to process them as well. I made the point a little while ago in another essay that what we think is men’s incorrect way of communicating with other men is really men’s natural way of communicating. I’d linked to an article in the Boston Globe about the problem of “lonely middle aged men” and how they don’t do communication and friendship like women do. Men’s natural, general, indifference to their emotional state isn’t a bug, it’s a feature of our mental firmware.

This isn’t to say men don’t get lonely or share the same emotional states as women, but it is to say that men do emotions differently than women. We are naturally predisposed to prioritize information above emotion; the Instinctual and Rational processes come before emotion in our interpretive process. I can remember early on in my marriage when I would talk to a buddy of mine on the phone and then abruptly just say “see ya” or hang up. He knew I’d call him back to relay whatever info we were discussing sooner or later, but my wife thought something was wrong. “Is everything OK with Ray?” she’d ask, and I said “Yeah, why wouldn’t it?” She explained that she thought my ending the call like that was rude or that we’d had an argument. She was used to long drawn conversations with girlfriends or her sister and then ending them by some confessions of how much they would miss each other or some other meaningful way.

She thought my way of communicating was wrong, but this is how men interact with each other – say what you mean, mean what you say and get to the point. This was also the presupposition of the Boston Globe article and many other posts; men do communication wrong, men do emotion wrong, and therefore they must be conditioned to do them correctly. That is to say, like women do.

Men lack the hardware and the firmware to do this, but they are conditioned to reflexively respond as women do from the earliest age. Thus, when a man processes emotion naturally it appears he’s not “feeling” correctly or isn’t “emotionally available” to female-correct sensibilities. In this context a man doing emotion as his innate predispositions compel him to seems like he’s deliberately playing out some ’emotional detachment’ game. But rather than accept that men and women are different and deal with emotions in different ways our egalitarian Blue Pill conditioning makes us presume the man is being inauthentic.

“He’s not really that way, it’s an act, or he’s just withholding his emotions to hurt a woman.” This is the rationale that female-correct society has to resort to because accepting that men evolved to process emotions differently would also mean that men and women are not the functional “equals” that blank-slate equalism is founded on. Thus, their emphasis is to pathologize this emotional detachment and make it one more negative aspect of maleness in need of a ‘cure’.

I think your comments are pertinent and you brought good rational arguments. However they are along the lines of “that’s how we are, men and women”, that’s how we evolved and we can’t do anything about it because it’s in our DNA and our mental programming. Feminism is marching on the fact that we’re born equal, even if there are obvious biological differences. Yes, women emote more and have the means to be greater emotional manipulators. But men can learn the so called feminine behaviors (The so called Game actually involves this and I noticed some of the PUAs mentioning that it’s the bisexual men who are actually the greatest players) and women can also learn the so called manly behaviors (there are a lot of examples especially in our current society). Is it good, is it bad? Hard to say. The thing is that the family is an artificial construction that helped our civilization flourish and it’s been lately systematically destroyed due to what you’re calling feminine primary social order.

Evolution is a continuous process and my opinion is that it’s either people will somehow transcend their biology (see AI or some kind of other conscious evolution) or after some “dark” times of men being more like women and women more like men the things will come to the previous “normality” of feminine women and manly men.

Human beings will not transcend their own evolution, they will adapt with their environments, but they will not be removed from its influences. We’ve been force fitting and conditioning men to be women for the past five generation. We presume that the feminine is the correct, unitary way that humans should be. We call that egalitarian equality, but what it comes down to is adopting a universal correct mode of being and it’s founded on feminine/female control of what is right and wrong – at least for the time being.

However, this force-fits boys and men into an unnatural state they never evolved for and all because the feminine is the presumed correct gender norm that we base equality on. We’re all expected to be equally female. What has that got us in those past five generations? A male suicide rate five times that of women. Boys prescribed sedatives for acting like boys instead of ‘correct’ girls. I can go on.

The fact remains that you and many others of your mindset believe that evolving or being in control of that process only progresses if boys and men “transcend” their biology and think like correct females. It is the height of new agey metaphysical woo woo hubris to expect one sex to behave counter to its 100,000 years of evolved nature and become like the other to accommodate what it thinks should be correct. This is the crux here; the feminine-primary social order we live in today is predicated on the infallibility of the female experience, however, this experience is only validated if both men and women are prioritizing women’s Emotional process as a way of interpreting the world.

The Instinctual Process

I want to thank you if you’ve made it through the first part of this series and you stuck with it. In some respects I can see why it might be odd that I’m covering cognitive processes, however, these are really the foundational premises for so many other Red Pill intersexual dynamics, as well as interpersonal and even social dynamics between humans that they deserve some sort of fleshing out. Again, I want to stress that these cognitive processing models are ideas I’m coming to and not settled science. However, they are based on both classic interpretations combined with the benefit of what we know about the biological, evolutionary and anthropological aspects of the cognitive processes today.

If you made the connection to Freud’s components of personality models – the Id, Ego and Super Ego – in the last post you at least grasp something of the initial theory I’m building on here. Useful as they are, Freud’s models lacked anything like an understanding of how the human mind works or how it evolved to the degree we take for granted today. Freud made his best guess at these processes from an inner psyche perspective. He formed his theories from what he deduced was operating inside our heads. My belief is that his (and others’) cognitive process models evolved and developed in response to interpreting our environment and the stimuli that our senses translated to them in our formative evolutionary past. Really, all of these interpretive processes, Instinct, Emotion and Reason, are the result of our experiential lives and the many benefits they provided us in surviving and reproducing.

All of that is not to discount the internal psyche and how these processes define who we are. Freud’s model proposed the Id, Ego and Superego are components of personality, what I’m proposing is that these components are the result of evolved cognitive processes – Instinct, Emotion and Reason – that served to create these inner models which later became those components of personality. I should say that I’m not entirely sold on these Freudian components, but I can see how cognitive processes would’ve led to developing them. I propose that these components of personality, Freud’s or other’s, are the products of these interpretive processes.

The Ego is a result of the Rational (Reason) process, while the Superego is a summation of the Emotional process. Since I don’t want to veer off into the psychology lesson in all this I’ll leave this proposition for another essay, but I do want to make a distinction here; What I’m proposing in this series is that our evolved interpretive processes are the means by which we interpret our reality, which in turn shapes who we are individually, socially and sexually.

Base Instincts

Stripped down, the Id is a result of the Instinctual process and largely resides in our unconscious or preconscious experience. Instinct is reflexive, and the behaviors it prompts are directly related to our basic survival and reproductive needs. Instinct operates outside our consciousness because of the inability of the human brain to focus on the endless sources of stimulus we experience in life. As good as we’d like to think we are with multi-tasking our interpretive cognition can only process so much; the rest is pushed into our subconscious periphery and hindbrain subroutines. This is the auto-pilot part of our instinctual cognition.

Since we largely see our Rational and Emotional processes (not to mention our social consciousness) as “higher order” processes, we tend to downplay the importance of Instinct. Our Instinctive process evolved to sustain our physical survival and reproductive imperatives in as pragmatic and practical a way as would be expedient. In most respects Instinctual interpretation and cognition is, by necessity, based on immediacy. By comparison, Emotion and Reason are slower forms of cognition, and, in the case of Reason, requires a period of learning, development and internalization. As such, there is no complication of conscience or morality, nor time for rational or emotional reflection when instinctual awareness and action is necessary. All the things we call sin or immoral, unethical or duplicitous, are manifested by our Instinctual process. But so too are ennobling aspects like self-sacrifice, violence-in-protection, mate guarding and parental investment. Hypergamy is also a behavioral and psychological dynamic that is deeply rooted in the Instinctual process.

Because of all that instinct often carries a negative preconception, at least by modern standards. And thus the Id becomes the part of the human psyche inseparably connected to the instinctual process. The desire for immediate gratification, the direct, unmitigated satisfaction of our most basic needs, and the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure; all of these we associate with the Id. However, all of these basic gratifications are directed towards elements of our evolved, instinctual needs for survival and insurances of thriving in the future. Much of what we think of as impulsivity is connected to the immediate aspect of instinct, but even this often serves some latent biological or survival purpose.

Gendered Differences

In psychology 101 we’re taught to think of the Id as our ‘childish’ selves. How many times have we read in the manosphere about how men can better relate with women via Amused Mastery or relating to them like a bratty younger sister? This process, this PUA technique, is a subconscious appeal to women’s Id via the Instinctual process. When I proposed that women want a man who Just Gets It a huge part of that dynamic relies on a man appealing to a woman’s Instinctual cognition. This is exactly why demonstrating an intent serves so much better than explicating an intent. Actions speak louder than words because actions always speak clearly to our Instinctual processing. Yet one more reason I, and most of my Red Pill contemporaries, advocate for the Medium being the Message – behavior almost always appeals to instinct.

One of the questions I’m always asked by guys is, how do I know when a woman is in whichever phase of her ovulation? Usually this is prompted by some reasoned want to be able to know when to turn up the Alpha around their girlfriend’s proliferative phase and ease off when she’s in her luteal (down cycle) phase. When you look at this in terms of cognitive processes, a man’s Reasoning process wants to deductively solve a problem that is rooted in the Instinctual process. It certainly makes sense, like a lot of other problems, to use our smarts to solve that reproductive problem. The real problem is that the use of Reason is what defeats the Instinctual cognition. There are actually many subconscious, instinctual mechanisms men have evolved to determine a great deal of information about women reproductive states, but our Reason and what goes into influencing it, tends to make us discount what out Instinctive process is telling us.

Most guys get frustrated with Game at some stage of their learning (Reason) it. The most common complaint is “I can never hope to remember all of this shit perfectly all the time. I can’t calibrate the way I need to, or, this is all an act, when can I let my hair down and just relax with a girl?” Another common question/presumption guys hit me with is how I manage to continually Game my wife. The answer I almost universally give is that I don’t, in fact, consciously Game my wife. Rather, my success in our marriage and really all of my relationships with all the women in my life is the result of having internalized what I’ve learned from Red Pill awareness and made it who I am. I’ve taken what I’ve learned and internalized it to the point that Game became my instinctual response to women’s instinctual process.

Game is not an act for me, it’s an instinct. If you were to put a guitar in my hands today I could play it with a good degree of proficiency. I can play by ear and instinctually I anticipate where notes and chord progressions go if I’m trying to play a song I’ve never played before because I’ve been playing guitar for the better part of my life. However, there was a point in time where all of that was foreign to me. I could play by rote memorization, but playing music wasn’t instinctual. Playing an instrument wasn’t part of who I was at that point in time.

The same is true for internalizing Game. It is entirely possible for your Rational process to inform your Instinctual process as well as your Emotional processes. This interplay can work for all our cognitive processes, but as I’m focusing on instinct today I want to stress again that Rational and Emotional processes can alter the, largely subconscious, Instinctual process. I have pretty good pitch as a result of being a musician for so long. If you asked me to play a particular note or chord I would instinctively do so. What I wouldn’t do is hunt around the fretboard counting frets and string to come to it. This is the best illustration I can give you with regards to internalizing other things.

Martial arts is another good example. There are certain innate, instinctual reactions we have when we’re confronted with conflict or protecting ourselves. When something flies at our faces we flinch. When we hear a sudden loud noise we startle. These are inborn parts of our firmware that evolved in us for very good reasons. What martial arts training does is forces us to sublimate those natural instincts and replace them with more efficient instinctual responses. Again, this is the Rational process rewriting the instinctual process via internalization.

Art has always been something I’ve had an innate ability for. I have do doubt that many of our natural cognitive ‘gifts’ are in some way gene expressions. So when we see a ‘natural’ at something our rational/emotional minds tend to think of it as something almost supernatural. However, I had to learn to play music because I was determined to express myself creatively in that fashion as well, and that took perseverance and internalization of skills. I think the same can be said for guys we think are ‘naturals’ with regard to Game and women. They may have an instinctual affinity for Game. They may be blessed with good genetics. But Game can be learned and internalized down to the Instinctual level.

All of that said, there are still fundamental parts of our mental firmware that are ‘pre-loaded’ into us at birth. Shit tests, Hypergamy, mate guarding behaviors, ovulatory shift behaviors, and many more are in-loaded in women and every bit as Instinctual as breathing or eating or self-preservation. Just as there are physical gender differences in our brains and bodies, so too are their differences in men and women’s Instinctual processes. The easiest one for us to consider is in sexual imperatives. I’ve noted in many essays that only women are Hypergamous. Men and women’s sexual strategies are reflective of their differing physical and mental make up, but those strategies are also different (and often contradicting) as a result of the Instinctual process unique to men and women as well.

One of the more powerful instincts men have is our sexual impulse and as a consequence it’s one that we are taught to control the most. Hypergamy is also a product of women’s Instinctual process, however, since about 60 years ago, prosocial control over Hypergamy has become something individual to a woman. Men’s self-control over their sexual nature is something that’s been part of our upbringing for millennia, women today are just now being expected to self-police their own sexual impulsivity.

These innate gender differences in instinct are a very difficult aspect of human nature for both egalitarian equalists and traditional moralists to accept. Equalists chomp at the bit with respect to their ego-investments in blank-slate idealism. Even the idea of a gendered difference in human nature, much less a human “nature” at all (a concept most deny) conflicts with the social constructivism that forms most of their ideology. Moralists tend to think that acknowledging (much less embracing) our instinctual selves is endorsing the worst of it, or it’s some kind of license to shirk the personal responsibilities for it. And, for both equalist and moralist, accepting our instinctual natures seems deterministic in a way that conflicts with their sense of existential control.

Well, the good news for both is that understanding men and women’s Instinctually processed natures is something our other two processes (for better or worse) have an influence over. There’s a common refrain from equalists today that presumes we’ve “evolved beyond” our base instincts (if they acknowledge them at all). From moralists we’ve always been ‘higher minded’ and above our instincts, that is if we accept some ideological ‘truth’. The root of both of these presumptions can be traced to the Emotional and Rational processes influencing our Instinctive process.

I’m of the opinion that very few of us are actually ruled by our instincts, but they are always the favorite scapegoat for ideologues. As a Red Pill aware man I think it’s important to have an objective understanding of how the Instinctive process operates in ourselves and women. Denying or disqualifying the importance of instinct and why it evolved is usually one of the biggest blindspots for a Blue Pill conditioned mind.

In the next part of this series I’ll explore the Emotional process and how it’s become the preeminent social-defining experience for us.

 

Men and Suicide

Before I launch in here today I need to confess that this post has been in my drafts folder for a while now. As most of my readers are aware I’ve known two personal friends who’ve taken their own lives as a result of having their Blue Pill conditioned beliefs set them on a path to self destruction. One of the more important parts of my charter when I started writing was to reach the men who were at their wits’ end in figuring out how to deal with their personal, romantic or married lives that had until then been directed by what their Blue Pill acculturation and their understanding of intersexual dynamics were molded to be. Since I started and stopped and then restarted this topic again there have been a few recent developments in my perspective on men taking their own lives as a result of the Blue Pill’s influence on them.

All of this really began about two months ago while I was engaging in a debate (or what passes for debate) on Twitter with a very unsympathetic woman who thought she’d set me straight about why it is men choose to take their own lives at a far greater rate than women. As it stands today, men are statistically between 4 and 5 times more likely than women to kill themselves. For most Red Pill aware men this is a fairly well known stat and one that gets quoted often enough when women trot out their own stats about abuse or whatever issue they think it is that MRA are ‘confused’ about. They usually get owned when this sort of back and forth goes down, but I’m always drawn to the comparative issues women think are equitable to that of men losing their lives.

Men’s disposability is also nothing new to the manosphere. Sperm is cheap, eggs are scarce and men are expected to sacrifice their lives for the security and betterment of women even in the most patriarchal of prior social orders. It’s always interesting to me that issues of mandatory male conscription into the military (potential death) and the unignorable high male suicide rates are something women still won’t accept as being a pretty raw deal for men. Women’s innate solipsism will still compel women to find some “yeah, but;…” rationalization for men’s disposability. Whenever I bring something like this up the reflexive presumption is that I’m bemoaning men’s victim status for being disposable. However, it’s impossible to discuss male disposability without such a connotation. My issues isn’t one of seeking some equitable disposability for women, but rather it’s drawing attention to the way women react and rationalize away their own part in that disposability.

True Powerlessness

I covered a lot of this in Chivalry vs. Altruism, so I won’t belabor that here, but I will point out the inherent power imbalance in this disposability. I’ve stated in the past that true power is not the control we can exert over the lives of others, but rather the extent to which we have control over the direction of our own lives. When we discuss issues of power between men and women the real, ultimate, loss of that control is in the context of our deaths.

There is no greater powerlessness for men than a lack of control over our own disposability.

Again, this isn’t some cry of victimhood for men – I happen to believe there’s an evolved component in the male psychological firmware that actually predisposes us to sacrificing ourselves in lieu of the security of our women and children. That’s not so much altruism as it is an inborn subroutine for protecting women that triggers in life-threatening situations. When a mass shooter opens fire indiscriminately at a crowd of people it is the men, not the women, who instinctively put their bodies between that gun and women or children, even the one’s they don’t personally know.

In the bigger scope of things, men will always be more disposable than women, and on some level of consciousness women’s hindbrains instinctively understand this. As such, women’s conscious process must find ways to reconcile this understanding in order for them to move on from men’s sacrifices. Sometimes this can manifest in the War Brides phenomenon, but I would argue that in today’s social learning environment of mass media, instant gratification of women’ solipsism and feminine-primary social order, this reconciliation takes some even uglier turns. Today, women have become very efficient in consoling each other’s solipsistic rationalizing of men’s sacrifices. In this environment of default female victimization and presumed oppression even men’s ultimate sacrifice, men’s ultimate powerlessness in their own deaths, cannot ever be consciously or unconsciously acknowledged in a state of fempowerment.

While I had this debate it occurred to me that even men’s suicides could never be attributed to anything less than their own ‘male egos’ by women, thus making them victims of their conditioning into “toxic” masculinity. Essentially, women were arguing that men would put a noose around their necks because they were socially conditioned to do so. Their suicide rate was attributable to their self-pity and inability to be ‘real men’ as some nebulous toxic masculinity had predefined for them. I thought this was kind of ironic when you compare this reasoning to the narrative shift away from ‘toxic’ masculinity to masculinity itself is toxic. This is really a stupid argument when you consider that it’s just another social convention used to absolve women of the guilt associated with men’s sacrifices. Men are hardwired for self sacrifice, but likewise women had need to evolved psychological adaptations to help them clear the red from their life’s ledger in this respect.

So, in the end, it helps if women can fall back on social conventions that put the associated guilt of men’s sacrifices back on the men themselves. Chivalry and traditional masculinity are fine when they serve the Feminine Imperative, but if a man actually gets killed or kills himself as part of that, well, that’s on him then. And this is what I was beginning with in this debate; there will always be a desire for absolution of women’s guilt or complicity in the deaths of men. I should also add that in terms of war and men being drafted women regularly default to the same asinine presumption that if women were running the world that there would be no wars. I won’t dignify that with any deeper analysis than to say that this too is one more (feeble) way of looking for absolution in the sacrifices men make to facilitate women’s reality.

Suicide Solution

That still left the question, why do men take their own lives in such alarmingly high numbers compared to women? I had to do a bit of research on this, but the demographics for male suicide today show some patterns. 7 in 10 suicides are men (majority white) between the ages of 45 and 65. As expected from gynocentric media, the primary reason always cited is men’s so called stubbornness in seeking out psychiatric help before they attempt suicide – again absolving women’s influence of any complicity – but ignoring what would motivate men, and this demographic in particular, to suicide. Again, there’s no attempt to understand the underlying reasons for male suicide, only a stereotypically easy ‘male-stupid’ answer to absolve women’s complicity in it.

There’s a lot to consider and be sensitive of when it comes to male suicide, but I’m going to speculate about a few reasons here coming from a Red Pill perspective. At no other time in western history has there ever been a generation of more purposeless men. From an evolved psychological perspective, men need a function. We are innate idealists. We look outward at the world and like to imagine what could be possible. I believe there is also an innate part of our evolved mental firmware that predisposes us to problem solving and improvisation, and much of that comes as an adaptation to women’s own innate need for men who can display cues of competency.

In Competency I made the case for women’s attraction to men displaying signals of competency, confidence, mastery and creative intelligence as a selected-for survival adaptation. In short, our competency in life, whether stemming from physical prowess, social dominance or creative intelligence is integrally linked with our reproductive success as well as overall life success.

However, at no other time in history has men’s competency been so devalued and so debased; other than perhaps in terms of physical prowess and accommodating the short term (Alpha Fucks) breeding imperatives of women. At no other time in (western) history has the equity in what a man can provide or create or solve been so implicitly unnecessary or superfluous to women. When we consider the rates of college enrollment and graduation of women compared to that of men, when we consider the practical problems that men used to solve, our utility has never been less needed – or at least that’s the zeitgeist of today.

We read about how men need to accept this new social reality – that our need for purpose and function is no longer needed or as valued – and we need to change our headspace about it as if it were something men might simply turn off. This is the result of equalist beliefs that anything gender-specific is something learned rather than the innate firmware we were born with. But we cannot simply change our minds about needing a function. We evolved to be problem solvers, women talk, men do, but now we are expected to accept that men are obsolete.

Loss of Utility

In Relational Equity I made a case for men investing too much of their egos into what intrinsic (and extrinsic) value they believe their respective women ought to appreciate about themselves. Under the old books, old social contract this equity may have had some conditional value to women, but as a buffer against Hypergamy today there is very little a man might consider value-added equity (unless it’s exceedingly rare or exceedingly valued) as a hedge against Hypergamy. Before any defeatist critics tell me how not all women are like that, yes, I get it, there are a lot of variables to consider here, but the equation and the reality doesn’t change – relational equity, overall, is no insurance against Hypergamy. It is also no insurance against women’s security and providership needs being met by resources that come from outside that relationship. I’m not considering this because I’m trying to depress any man, but it is vitally necessary to consider when we look at reasons why 45-65 year old men are predisposed to higher rates of suicide and higher rates of alcoholism and opioid abuse.

I would argue that a major contributing factor to high male suicide rates finds its origins in men’s need for purpose, function and accomplishment during this phase of life. Every day I read an article about how men my own age are dropping out of social discourse. I mentioned a Boston Globe article about just this phenomenon in Male Control. In some respects I can understand that despite the unprecedented connectivity we enjoy today men really don’t seek out bonds with other men. This is primarily due to the fact that men need a common purpose in order to form these bonds. Again, this is just how we’re wired. Women intentionally schedule time to simply interact with their same-sex friends just for the sake of communicating and enjoying the act of communicating. Men need function or a common purpose to come together. We need an activity or a problem to solve and then we communicate and form bonds.

Women talk, men do. This is a well studied fact; our brains and, by extension, social networks largely center on purpose and function. Now, lets presume that in spite of having literally all the information in the world at our finger tips we remove all need for the utility that men are wired to provide to not just women, but the larger scope of Society. We get a generation of men on the outside looking in. Only the most creative, resourceful and motivated of men can really utilize, much less master, all that this information has to offer him. And even a portion of those men can really see past the antipathy of their supposed obsolescence to do something truly meaningful or masterful. As the saying goes, most men live lives of quiet desperation, but in the modern era these men are demonstrably useless. And I mean that in a functional sense; once a Beta man has been wrung of his utility to women, he ceases to be able to convince his hindbrain that he can build, improvise or solve things.

Once a man is stripped of his usefulness, once it’s made clear that all of the equity he believed would support his relationship has been erased after so long, men will still resort to practical, deductive solutions. That solution may be suicide when weighed with the prospect of having to rebuild himself in a new context; and even if he did would he just be building a new ‘him’ based on his old belief set?

When my brother in-law committed suicide it seemed to me at the time to be the most logical end he would come to. He was a man very steeped in Blue Pill ideals, but he was also a man who prided himself on what he could do – and if he didn’t know how to do something he was always a fast learner. He literally built his life, and expectations of a future life, around the relational equity he believed defined him as a man. He was very invested in the old books, old social contract that rooted a man’s attractiveness and quality in what it was he could do. What he built for himself and his wife defined his identity.

All of that 20+ years of building equity and an identity based on it was erased for him in the space of about six months. But it was more than the 20 years he’d been saving, building, solving and refining, it was a perceived future he believed would be lived out for the rest of his life that got erased.

To me, at that time, his suicide made absolutely perfect sense from a male-deductive logic perspective. What didn’t make sense was all of the endless rationalizations I heard from his family, friends, his kids, his Ex (my now widowed sister in-law) about why they thought he went through with it when it was plain for anyone who wanted to confront the truth to see. A lot of these rationales were almost verbatim the same that the article I linked used. “If only men would reach out when they have suicidal thoughts”, any and every rationale that might absolve his Ex of the guilt, and still more that were meant to console her (he must’ve been mental ill) though in the end she really didn’t need it.

My brother in-law made a practical decision not an emotional one, and while I wouldn’t presume to say that a guy’s emotional state isn’t very influential in his suicide, how he comes to the decision is very much attributable to men’s deductive nature. He showed no outward signs of emotional distress. In fact, right up to his hanging himself he was in very good spirits and seemingly accepting of the fact that the wife he lived his life for was going to be leaving him soon. He was very matter of fact in a way that men are when they’ve resolved something for themselves. When a guy seems to be taking things in stride we don’t want to create a problem where we see none.

When we look in this context at the high rate of male suicide in this age demographic we begin to see how men come to this decision. Everything they’ve built up to 45-65 years of age is now debased, devalued or simply erased. All of the value and equity they’ve committed their lives to – doing the right thing according to their Blue Pill conditioning – is as if it never mattered. So they’re confronted with a choice, rebuild themselves (hopefully in a new Red Pill aware paradigm), reconstruct a new life and tough it out, or, simply, pragmatically erase themselves.

Personally, I’ve had at least two occasions where I’ve been confronted with rebuilding myself. It’s a tough prospect, make no mistake, especially when you’re Red Pill aware and understand the reality behind having to rebuild a life from scratch after so much investment in plans and projects you truly believed in when you made them. My father had to confront this rebuilding too at around 55 years of age, but rather than rebuild or kill himself I watched him slowly decay into a man I never knew could exist as my dad.

Zeroed Out

I apologize if this topic is a bit of a downer, but I think it ought to be part of any Red Pill aware man’s understanding that at many points in our lives we will be confronted with the prospects of having to rebuild ourselves. Failure, rejection and disappointment will happen for you, that’s just part of a man’s life, and it’s easy to rattle off platitudes about how many times you get back up being the measure of a man. But what I’m saying is there will be times when total reconstruction of your life will be a necessity.

You will be zeroed out at some point, and how you handle this is a much different situation than any temporary setback. This zeroing out is made all the more difficult when you confront the fact that what you believed to be so valuable, the equity you were told was what others would measure you by, was all part of your Blue Pill conditioning. At that point you need to understand that there is most definitely a hope for a better remake of yourself based on truths that were learned in the hardest way.

To end this I’m going to quote the comment of a man I met when I spoke at the 21 Convention in September. I won’t use his name, but after we talked he confessed that he was the commenter here. He’d made the trip to the convention to meet me face to face, to thank me for my work and gave me permission to use his example in a post. I won’t quote it entirely, but you can read the whole thing here. His situation is an example of, and inspiration for, everything I’ve illuminated in this essay

After a long marriage I divorced the mother of my children. A couple of years later, after some casual dating, I met a woman I would come to describe as my soulmate. I got married young – but this time, with all my infinite wisdom gained over the years – I was finally wise enough to pick a woman I was super compatible with.

We were together for a few years and even lived together. Things started out great and it was mostly smooth sailing until we moved in together – at which time I slowly allowed myself to be betaized in a slow motion, excruciating painful way.

About a month after breaking up with her I fully planned to commit suicide. I wrote a long letter explaining my rationalization and took other affirmative steps towards going through with it. About a week after I wrote the note – with D(eath) Day fast approaching – I took a break from getting my affairs in order to surf the net. I stumbled upon an Ask Reddit thread that was bad mouthing various subreddits. Some feminazi or male feminist mentioned the Red Pill subreddit as an example of a subreddit filled with craziness, and I decided to check what all of the fuss was about. Now

I’m not a religious man, but I will never rule out divine intervention. The timing of finding TRP – by complete coincidence no less – couldn’t have been more fortuitous. I stayed up all night reading the side bar – Rollo’s essays having the deepest effect on me – and everything…just…clicked….Talk about connecting the dots! Wow! It was very much like a come to Jesus moment. It was like divinity revealed secret knowledge to me just when I needed it the most – knowledge that gave me hope and very well may have saved my life. This all went down not really that long ago in actual time – but from where I metaphorically stand now it seems like an eternity.

Stay strong my friends, you can rebuild yourself even in the face of being zeroed out.

False Equivalencies

equivalencies

One of the more persistent questions I get asked about Hypergamy is if there’s a parallel to it in men. I’ve answered this in several comment threads both here and in other forums, but I’ve never really addressed it in a post. When I was considering this I remembered a couple of comments from manosphere luminaries Deti and Novaseeker who I thought summed up this (often deliberate) misconception. Deti was kind enough to provide me with his own observations which I’m quoting and riffing on here:

It’s often said that men and women are both hypergamous.  This isn’t true.  Both men and women optimize.  But only women are hypergamous.

Hypergamy has become a term of art in the manosphere.  It has a very specific meaning which differs from the meaning social scientists ascribe to it.  In social science it refers specifically and only to marriage relationships.   The term is used to refer to women marrying men who are perceived to be wealthier or of a higher social/economic standing or caste, usually observed in Hindu cultures on the Indian subcontinent but also observed in early American society.  In the United States it’s often referred to as women “marrying up”.   

 F. Roger Devlin, himself having a social science background, appropriated the term in his essay entitled Sexual Utopia in Power when referring to his observation that young single women always seemed to be looking for the best man they can get at any one time, seeking the most attractive man or men for sex.  Devlin observed modern Western women’s propensity to discard one man in favor of a better man, in serial fashion, always doing their best to “move up” and get  a more attractive, better man with each successive discard and pairing.  

Expanding on this, manosphere writers and bloggers noticed that hypergamy operates at a low hum, like a background operating system, in every woman.   It is “satisfied” while she’s with a man of sufficiently high value. But if a man of perceived higher value or greater attractiveness  shows interest, and/or her current man’s value is faltering, that low hum becomes a loud alarm. This can cause her, at the very least, to have feelings of attraction for the new man and feelings of dis-attraction for the current man. This can in many cases cause her to leave the current man for the new higher value, more attractive man. This doesn’t always happen, but it can happen. Hypergamy can operate in any combination – more attractive man showing interest; current man’s attractiveness waning or falling, and anywhere in between. Thus, the manosphere’s use of the term “hypergamy” came into being, to refer to a core aspect of female sexual nature which is unique to women. 

If you do a Google search for the term ‘Hypergamy’ you’ll find The Rational Male and the topic category link for all the posts I’ve ever done on it is the second return you’ll get below the Wikipedia entry for the term. At the risk of a humble-brag, I’m not sure anyone in the ‘sphere has written more extensively on the subject than myself and I think Deti sums up the conflict in definition that both critics and the uninitiated have with their understanding why there is a need for a broader definition of Hypergamy.

I made an effort to address this in The Hypergamy Conspiracy, but this was some time ago. ‘Hypergamy’ serves well in a much broader capacity, but should the Feminine Imperative find that broader definition threatening to its purpose it will casually dismiss it as illegitimate, because the manosphere appropriated the term. Thus, we’ll see feminine-primary society embrace the larger ideas of Hypergamy (as in the embrace of Open Hypergamy) so long as it’s flattering to, and benefits most, women. Once it gets ugly, then it conveniently denies the legitimacy of the broad definition and it’s strictly about the “women having a tendency to marry up” sociology term.

People confuse “optimization” with “hypergamy“. Both men and women optimize; meaning they want the best they can get, of anything and everything. Men and women optimize everything:  jobs, cars, houses, furniture, friends, even churches. Men and women optimize with each other. But men and women optimize with the opposite sex in different ways, and that’s where the confusion comes in.

Hypergamy in its current iteration in the manosphere means essentially “is attracted only to people who are more attractive than I am”.  Women will be sexually attracted to men who they perceive as “above” them in attractiveness.  They will be somewhat attracted to men who are at their rough SMV level, but that man must bring other things to the table, usually provisioning and commitment, before she will have sex with him. And women are never ever sexually attracted to men who are perceived to be beneath their own SMV level.  

Example:   A woman with SMV = 7 will be sexually attracted to males with SMV of 8 and up.   She will pair with a male 7, if and only if he brings “other things” to the table. She will never be sexually attracted to male 6s on down.  And she will be able to easily get sex with men above her in SMV.  She can occasionally get relationships with male 8s.  She can easily get relationships and sex with male 7s.  Male 6s on down are her orbiters, with whom she’ll never have sex.   

Female critics of the broader definition of Hypergamy often have a (contrived) problem with the distinction between optimization and Hypergamy. And, as Deti explains, a lot of this comes from the fact that women’s sense of their own sexual market value is largely overinflated. Women rate 80 percent of men below average in attractiveness. When you contrast, even loose, statistics like this against the broader idea of Hypergamy you start to see why women would want there to be some analogous kind of Hypergamy for men. Hypergamy in women is founded on three bedrock truths:

  • Persistent doubt that a woman has adequately ‘optimized’ on Hypergamy with any man she has, or will potentially have, consolidated on a long term relationship with.
  • Hypergamy never seeks its own level. Women are always looking for a better-than-equal pairing with men in respect to their own SMV compared to his. When 80% of men are (loosely) agreed to be below average in attractiveness to women, we must consider that this assessment is measured in relation to what women’s Hypergamous doubt might be optimized with in a man.
  • Women’s Hypergamy is based in, and the source of, women’s dualistic sexual strategy. The manosphere euphemism for this is Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. This shorthand refers to Hypergamy seeking optimization in both short-term-sex breeding potential and (ideally) long-term parental investment, protection and provisioning security potential.

It’s important to review these principles of Hypergamy because, for all the protestations of women wanting an equal comparison, there are no parallels of Hypergamy for men’s sexual strategy.

Deti continues:

Men do not operate like this at all.  And that’s the difference.   Men are not attracted only to women who are above them in SMV. A man can be, and often is, attracted to women above him in SMV, and to women at his SMV level and also to women below him in SMV. What is also different is the level of women he can get and how well his relationships will work out, based on his and her SMV.   

A man will be unable to continue a relationship with a woman above his SMV. He is very sexually attracted to them, and occasionally lucks out and gets sex with one or two; but he can’t sustain a relationship with them. He can get sex from women at his SMV level but only if he goes all in and offers commitment. He can most easily get sex with women below him in SMV, many times no strings attached sex. 

Example: A male 6 will rarely get sex with a 7 but can’t keep anything with her going. He’s not even on the radar of female 8s on up. He can get sex with a female 6 only if he offers commitment and provisioning. He can most easily get sex with female 5s on down. 

And here’s the grand difference: A man is OK with having sex with women at and below his own SMV. In fact, he’ll be happiest in his relationships with women beneath his own SMV – a woman is “meh” about sex with men at her SMV, and she is positively repulsed and sickened at having sex with men below her own SMV. She’ll be happiest in a relationship with a man above her own SMV and she can tolerate a man at her SMV. And she’ll be miserable at best with a man beneath her SMV and will tend to blow up those relationships. 

Men and women both have attraction floors. Men’s attraction floor is below their own SMV.   Women’s attraction floor is either above her own SMV and sometimes at her own SMV, but never beneath it.

I explore the fundamentals of intimate attachments and how SMV status influences it here. That article might be worth reviewing because in it is a lesson about Hypergamy. Again, compare the idea that the most secure attachments between couples are ones where the dominant, man’s, SMV status is roughly 1-2 points above that of the woman’s and contrast that against the fact that women rate 80% of men’s attractiveness as ‘below average’.

Also, keep in mind the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The other, minor difference is that men are polygamous, not hypergamous. A man’s imperative is not (necessarily) to get the best woman. It’s to get as many women as possible with as little investment and commitment as possible. If he can do it, he would love to get as many women as possible at and a little below his own SMV, and have sex with as many of them as possible for as long as possible, without committing to or investing in any of them.   That’s spinning plates. Most men don’t do this, because they can’t, because they’re not attractive enough, but that’s a different post.  

A woman’s imperative is to get the best one man she can get for sex and for provisioning.     That’s why you don’t see many women “dating” (i.e. having sex with) several different men at the same time. Women don’t spin plates; they pick the best plate they can and take care of it as best they can. Instead of trying to collect plates, they just change out the plates, one for another, when a bigger, better one comes along.  

This is why the best long term relationship is one in which the man outranks his woman in SMV. He should be at least +1 and preferably +2 in SMV.  This makes both of them happiest in the long run.

On many an occasion I’ve fielded the question, “Well Rollo, if there’s a Feminine Imperative, there must be a Masculine Imperative.” People don’t usually like the answer, but from a strictly evolutionary and biological perspective, the Masculine (or male) Imperative is Unlimited Access to Unlimited Sexuality.

Deti summed this up adequately here, but the more high-minded of my critics will often think the ‘male imperative’ is setting the bar too low for men, but usually this comes from a want of something more than the visceral truth of what motivates us. And I’d agree with this for the most part, if men are to become something more than their base natures would have of them. But using the same reproductive metric I use in describing women’s Hypergamy I’ve also got to recognize that men’s drive for sex has been the incentive for our greatest achievements and our worst proclivities. If we are to be ethical in our judgements we must be amoral in our assessments. Sometimes those assessments will be unflattering for men and women.

The objective issue here is that men’s imperative is not analogous to women’s imperative. When we look at men’s approach to gratifying this imperative we see the stark contrast between women’s Hypergamy and men’s sexual strategy.

False Equivalencies

One of the most predictable responses I expect to hear from women when they chafe at various Red Pill truths is always the first presumption of false equivalencies between the sexes. Whenever I, or any Red Pill man relates some unflattering truth about the nature of women, without fail, the first reflexive response is “well, men do this too, and it’s worse,…” or there’s some other unflattering presumption about the nature of men that’s supposed to provide some counterbalance to the ugly truth about women that’s being related. Feminized men and White Knights will also adopt this tact in order to defend the honor of the Sisterhood so as to have there be no doubt that they ‘aren’t like typical men’ in their identifying with women.

This is to be expected though. The first impulse is to defend against anyone acknowledging that truth by distraction. “Ooh, ooh, men do it too!” is a distraction meant to refocus the intent of objectively (amorally) assessing what is otherwise an unflattering aspect of female nature, behavior and/or the motivators that prompt it. In order to do so we are expected to first presume a co-equal state between men and women, as well as a co-equal state of mutual goals. Thus, for women’s distraction to be effective there must be a presumed state of equivalency between men and women.

As such, we are, by default, expected to accept that if there is a female Hypergamy there must also be a male form of Hypergamy. This is a very useful illustration of the false equivalency principle women rely upon. Deductively it should make sense, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but only in a mindset and a social order based on egalitarian-equalism is that reaction presumed to be the binary opposite of the original action.

If, as equalism would have us accept, men and women are functional equals, then it follows that there must be a male Hypergamy that is the reaction to women’s (often unflattering) Hypergamy. Women’s innate solipsism only reinforces this presumption because only an action that impacts a woman (positively or negatively) is deemed a legitimate truth to that mindset. I would argue that this is exactly why women’s first reflexive defense (to anything challenging her gender-defined ego-investments) will always be to presume some gender-opposite reaction for men. The belief is that while she can’t deny the proposed truth, at least (she) women aren’t as bad as men. From there the objective is to distract from that uncomfortable truth by indicting (functionally equal) men’s natures.

All of this presumption only functions in a social order that’s based on the idea of egalitarian-equalism between the sexes. When we look at things from a gender-complementarity perspective, and we accept that there are fundamental differences in the innate natures and motivators of men and women, those distractions become less effective. Just as Deti explains for us here, once we accept that men are not co-equal agents with women, we don’t even expect that there would be an equivalent to women’s Hypergamy in men.

The genders are different. We both have strategies for sex and life and fulfillment that are often not analogous to one another. Women only expect that there would be analogies because they presume that a female experience, female goals and contexts that benefit the Feminine Imperative will necessarily be what men mutually agree upon as what’s best for themselves. Only in a state of equalism, ignorant and intolerant of anything not agreed upon by ‘feminine correctness’, is there a presumption that men must have some parallel to the motivators and behaviors that prompt women. Only in a state of solipsism is this the subconscious assumption.

This is something to keep in mind the next time a woman bemoans how unfair double standards are for women. Men are not women, women are not men. Our strategies are often incompatible, or at the very least require a degree of compromise or total acquiescence to coexist in an ostensibly symbiotic relationship between men and women. It is only women (and feminized men) who default to supposing men are their functional equals.

The Reconstruction IV

head_hitting

The Red Pill shows you the dark side of women. Not so that you will hate them but so you appreciate them for what they are, not what they’re not.

I think one of the harder aspects of the Red Pill for men who get awakened-while-married (or while monogamous) to accept is the disillusionment of their Blue Pill idealism about women confirmed for them in the behavior and mindsets of their wives. Breaking the Blue Pill ego-investments of single men who unplug is a difficult task, but their investment risk in women (real or imagined) they believe might make acceptable long-term mates is far less than a man who’s been married for more than 4 or 5 years.

For the single Red Pill guy with the option to simply walk away from a less than optimal situation, his conflict becomes one of potentials and weighing them against his Blue Pill ideals – ideals his unplugging should rid him of. His struggles is one about the “what ifs” and disabusing himself of the scarcity mentality that the Blue Pill has conditioned him for. While Hypergamy inherently instills in women a persistent doubt about a man’s quality, the Blue Pill instills in men a doubt about “quality” women’s scarcity and his capacity to find and maintain a ‘soul mate‘.

However for married men, with a considerable amount of emotional, social, financial and familial investment at stake in his marriage, there’s a natural resistance that comes in the form of denial. What’s tough is that, within this initial state of denial, a husband accepts the Red Pill truths about women and then has those truths confirmed for him by the woman he’s been sleeping next to for a number of years. All of the awareness about men and women’s differing concepts of love, the truth of women’s Hypergamously motivated opportunism, her confirming her open Hypergamy, all of the events that led up to his committing himself in marriage to her while he was still effectively Blue Pill – all of that gets confirmed for him when he puts into practice the concepts he learns from the Red Pill.

For all of the ‘anger’ that profiteering critics would like to wipe off on Red Pill thought, that anger finds its base in men’s confirming their own role in what was (or would’ve been) a life-long strategy for him to fulfill the dictates of women’s Hypergamy as well as the larger scope of the Feminine Imperative. When we put this into the perspective of a married man who unplugs, you can see why this is such a threat to the imperative. That man must reassess his life from the position of his being an unwitting participant in his Blue Pill conditioning, but furthermore, he becomes a constant caution, a warning, for men who have yet to make the same uneducated decisions he has.

There is nothing more depressing to me than to listen to a married man parrot back all of the tropes the Feminine Imperative has taught him to repeat about why he’s in the subservient role in his marriage. These are the guys who’ll laughingly tell single men how they must “clear everything with the Boss” before they are allowed (or will allow themselves) to participate in anything remotely masculine or self-entertaining. These are the men who prattle about their ‘honey-do’ lists, the men who count themselves fortunate to have such a ‘great wife’ who’ll allow him to watch hockey or football on a weekend. I wrote a more detailed post about these men in The Abdication Imperative.

These husbands are depressing to me because, in their Blue Pill ignorance, they represent the summation of their roles according to the strategies of the Feminine Imperative. They’ll gladly White Knight for their wives’ right to the Frame of their marriage (under the pretense of equalism). They’ll laugh and commiserate with other husbands sharing their position of powerlessness-but-with-all-accountability. They’ll chirp with funny little Facebook memes that share their ridiculous, married state, but for all of that acquiescing to their ‘fates’ what they really represent is the goal-state of men in the Feminine Imperative’s plan for their lives.

Men generally come to the realization of their appointed role at some point in their lives. Whether it’s Red Pill awareness or coming to a mid life crisis epiphany, men get ‘woke’ in some respect. The few who don’t are men whose existence literally depends on their not coming to terms with how the Blue Pill has made them what/who they are. The most common way for men to come into this awareness has been that mid-life epiphany, but in order for men to reconcile that awareness with maintaining a comfortable sense of self they become the men I describe in The Abdication Imperative. They really don’t know anything else but what the Blue Pill has created them to be, so they go into denial and add some self-deprecating humor to it to cope with the dissonance of knowing they’ve been played by the Feminine Imperative for the better part of their lives. So you get the ‘Yes Dear’ husbands; the men who realize the truth too late, but that same scarcity mentality forces them to go along to get along.

The rise of Red Pill awareness of intersexual dynamics on the internet has made for a community of men who find this denial distasteful. Rather than abdicate to the imperative and their wife’s Frame they look to the Red Pill and Game for a remedy to that state. Sometimes that’s getting their wives to have sex with them more frequently or they’re looking to better themselves in a Red Pill context to gain women’s (their wives’) respect. As I’ve mentioned many times before, the Red Pill represents a threat to the Feminine Imperative keeping men ignorant of their roles in women’s Hypergamous plans. Now that threat comes to fruition in the context of men’s marriages.

One way or another, men will become aware of their role, how that man goes about dealing with it is another story. Most (being Blue Pill) abdicate and accept their powerlessness in their relationships. It’s the other men who choose not to just cope, but to reconstruct themselves that the Red Pill will have answers for.

Break Up with Your Wife

Not too long ago in various comment threads on this blog readers had a discussion about how any marriage (at least in the contemporary sense) is always founded on a Beta status for the husband. I don’t entirely agree with that assessment, but considering how the large majority of marriages are the culmination of Blue Pill conditioned men fulfilling their role as cuckolded provider for women cashing out of the sexual marketplace it’s certainly an understandable presumption. I won’t elaborate too much on the particulars, but the very act of committing to a woman monogamously implies a man (even one with an Alpha persona) is leaning towards a Beta perception. Alpha’s don’t commit to anyone but themselves, Betas are eager to commit from necessity and scarcity. The act becomes the confirmation.

If we follow this binary logic, the only solution to a man’s condition within his marriage – the only way to institute a real change – is to reject and break that commitment. Personally, I have lived out what most men would envy in my marriage for over 20 years now, so the idea of leaving Mrs. Tomassi would only seem like a good idea if I weren’t satisfied sexually, psychologically and life-wise with her. But, as I always repeat, don’t use my marriage as a benchmark. There was a point where I needed to break up with her, if only by adopting my own mental point of origin above that of hers or women in general as my own Blue Pill conditioning would expect of me.

I mentioned in the beginning of this series that married (committed) men seeking to reconstruct themselves within that context ought to read the post for the Iron Rule of Tomassi #7:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #7
It is always time and effort better spent developing new, fresh, prospective women than it will ever be in attempting to reconstruct a failed relationship. Never root through the trash once the garbage has been dragged to the curb. You get messy, your neighbors see you do it, and what you thought was worth digging for is never as valuable as you thought it was.

I mention this as a starting point because when you’re making the decision to reconstruct yourself you must ‘do it for you’. Once again, any real change always beggars the question about who you’re really changing for. Nothing is an act of unguided, unbiased, self-initiated change – there is always some ancillary influences as well as consequences. This is the crisis of motive.

However, if you find yourself awakened-while-married and you want to remake yourself, know that this change must be for yourself and not for your wife. This decision to reconstruct your life, your persona, your belief set, etc., and reject what the Blue Pill has made of you must come as a result of making yourself your mental point of origin. This ‘new you’ precludes any consideration of your wife’s interests. It must be in order for your transformation to be genuine to both yourself and those who know the ‘old’ you. As I mentioned in the last installment, the likelihood of your wife accepting your new persona is dependent on what Frame you entered that relationship with as well as what you’ve surrendered of your self-respect to her.

This is the most difficult part for Blue Pill men wanting to reconstruct themselves. Their mental point of origin doesn’t change, they want to change because they want to be “more Alpha” for their wives, not themselves. The idea is to adopt just enough Alpha that their wives turn the sex spigot back on for them, but never really internalize the Red Pill to the point that is fundamentally changes who they are. Thus, it becomes an act not unlike newbie PUAs aping the behaviors of their mentors, but never internalizing the deeper meanings of why they work or making them part of ‘who’ they are as a person.

This is what kills a man’s reconstruction before it ever starts. That change must be a self-first proposition. Your Red Pill self-work must be intrinsically rewarding because there is absolutely no guarantee that a man’s wife / girlfriend will ever reimagine him from a different perspective. Particularly if that woman entered into that marriage/LTR because she’d hoped to maintain Frame indefinitely due to him abdicating to it.

You must become Red Pill aware for the sake of knowing the larger truth, internalize it and then apply it without the pretense of believing it can be used to achieve Blue Pill ideals.

With this in mind, you must presume that you are breaking up with your wife / girlfriend. It is far better to approach your reconstruction from the idea that the Red Pill you would likely have nothing to do with a woman like your wife. If you were single man, Red Pill aware and Game savvy, would you even approach your wife knowing what you do now about her personally as well as what you know about the Feminine Imperative and how it influences her?

Your reconstruction requires a radical shift that is only possible for you by breaking up with your LTR, at least in a subconscious respect. It is important to assess what, if anything, is worth rooting through garbage for. If you approach your reconstruction by first making yourself your mental point of origin, the next step is to assume you will be breaking up with your wife. It may never come to that, but this is the gravity with which a man must come to his reconstruction. The same reasoning I mention in Rooting through Garbage applies to your reconstruction:

Even if you could go back to where you were, any relationship you might have with an ex will be colored by all of the issues that led up to the breakup. In other words, you know what the end result of those issues has been. It will always be the 800 pound. gorilla in the room in any future relationship. As I elaborated in the Desire Dynamic, healthy relationships are founded on genuine mutual desire, not a list of negotiated terms and obligations, and this is, by definition, exactly what any post-breakup relationship necessitates. You or she may promise to never do something again, you may promise to “rebuild the trust”, you may promise to be someone else, but you cannot promise to accept that the issues leading up to the breakup don’t have the potential to dissolve it again. The doubt is there. You may be married for 30 years, but there will always be that one time when you two broke up, or she fucked that other guy, and everything you think you’ve built with her over the years will always be compromised by that doubt of her desire.

You will never escape her impression that you were so optionless you had to beg her to rekindle her intimacy with you.

It is always time and effort better spent developing new, fresh, prospective women than it will ever be in attempting to reconstruct a failed relationship. This is the same rationale you will need to adopt when you transition into a new Red Pill aware persona. This is necessary because once you’ve become aware there is no going back to that previous state of ignorance. You will know what can be possible with or without your wife/LTR.

Thus, it is important to zero everything out and treat your old wife as a new prospective woman. This perspective may mean she becomes someone not worth your effort, but it might also mean she likes the prospect of a new husband. This may mean she too will have to undertake some kind of transformation in relating to a Red Pill aware husband, or it might be that this is something she never foresaw. Dread works best when a man understands the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

By adopting the mindset that you are breaking up with her you reclaim this power – you have nothing to lose and have no way of going back to unknowing the Red Pill awareness you have now. For single men I often point out that breaking up with a girl is one of the best ways to demonstrate higher value (DHV). The downside to that is that by the time you get to the point of leaving DHV isn’t what you really care about. For the reconstructing man, adopting the position that you are breaking up (or have broken up) harnesses some of this DHV.

Most women (wives) will interpret your new self-importance as some kind of phase or your reclaiming your independence (rather than her co-dependence) as some childish sulking behavior. Anticipate this. She will presume you’re ‘going your own way’ within the marriage to force her to fuck you more or to get her to comply with your Frame. This is to be expected, but watch what her initial reactions to your takeaway are. This will give you an insight into how she perceives you. If you’re predominantly Beta her response will be that you’re pouting or sulking by removing your attention. If she sees you as Alpha her response will be much more serious and you’ll get the “what’s wrong baby?” reaction. This is a good starting point in determining her genuine perception of you.

You will effectively be NEXTing your wife so be prepared for her post-NEXTing behavior-set (extinction burst behavior) in the same way you would if you dropped a plate. This will be a tough transition for men who have invested themselves emotionally in their wives. You’ll want to come back to that place of comfort, but always remember that place is one of disrespect and sexlessness.

Most men will go half-way in their reconstruction and this is usually the result of having played a game of relationship ‘chicken’. They have their bluff called because it was always a bluff to them – they never made themselves their mental point of origin so they go back to the safety of their Blue Pill disrespect. Their wives respond to the takeaway of their attention, but never really connect with being attracted to his new self-respect and self-importance. Once that woman even marginally steps up her sexual frequency – motivated by her wanting him to return to her Frame – the guy gets comfortable and wants to go back to his comfy wife while feeling validated by thinking he made a genuine change that she responded to.

You must go all the way. If you don’t, the next time you attempt to exercise your Red Pill awareness in the hope that she’ll accept the new you, you’ll be that much more laughable to her. In fact, you’ll only further cement her perception of your whiny Beta status. The first time it’s Dread, the second time it’s you being pissy.

She’s Unhaapppy,…

controlling-parent

Do women seem more or less happy to you? It’s kind of hard to quantify/qualify what happiness means to men, but when it comes to women’s state of happiness or contentment I think most guys have a tendency to expect women’s experience of happiness to be measured on a similar scale to their own. From a strictly evo-psych / evo-bio perspective it’s important that any metric of happiness between the sexes be measured by first considering each’s innate psychological firmware and what contributes to men and women feeling a degree of happiness.

Because men and women rate their experiences differently per their own interpretations of what contribute to it  happiness becomes a really subjective evaluation. As you might guess, what makes for a happy woman is not always what makes for a happy man. It’s a similar contrast to men and women’s differing concepts of love. Men tend to approach love from an idealistic perspective, and women base their emotional investments on opportunistic contexts. We’re conditioned from an early age to believe men and women share a mutual concept of love thanks to an ever-present presumption of egalitarian equalism between males and females, and this is where a lot of intersexual problems find their root.

Likewise, our egalitarian presumptions also condition men and women to believe that we share mutual concepts of what should and shouldn’t make either sex happy in a long term sense. In this case it is women who are largely misled by the equalist narrative. For more than sixty years women have been conditioned to believe they can meet their own idealistic goal of ‘having it all’ if they can only “empower” themselves into being Strong Independent Women®. Increasingly women are coming to the conclusion that this pro-woman life plan has been nothing but feel-good advertising, and now, after having invested their most productive years in this narrative they find that they are largely unhappy with the results its brought into their lives.

You see, equalism (the religion of feminism) would have women believe that what makes men happy must necessarily be what makes women happy – or would make them happy in the long term if only the “patriarchy” would allow women the same opportunities to experience it. If we are all blank-slate equals, what makes women and men happy must be mutually shared, thus men are encouraged to be women and craft their identities around feminine-primacy, but also, women must become men and craft their personas around the masculine ideals that bring men so much power, and by way of it happiness.

Yet in our modern western(izing) world we find that the equalist effort to socially engineer androgyny into society has had the opposite effect in engendering happiness in women. Article after article and study after study show that women’s perceived happiness is at an all-time low since researchers have been collecting data on it. Women are living longer lives and at no point in history have they enjoyed more access to the means of more success than in the now. Mainstream feminine-primacy sees that more women are college educated than men, while men fill our prisons at 12 times the rate of women, yet for all of this women express feeling less satisfied with the quality of, and happiness in, their lives.

American women are wealthier, healthier and better educated than they were 30 years ago. They’re more likely to work outside the home, and more likely to earn salaries comparable to men’s when they do. They can leave abusive marriages and sue sexist employers. They enjoy unprecedented control over their own fertility. On some fronts — graduation rates, life expectancy and even job security — men look increasingly like the second sex.

But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. In the 1960s, when Betty Friedan diagnosed her fellow wives and daughters as the victims of “the problem with no name,” American women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today, that gender gap has reversed. Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In postfeminist America, men are happier than women.

And, as would be expected, women’s dissatisfaction with their lives is always traced back to uncooperative men and their reluctancy to make feminism the roaring success they just know it could be if men would simply accept their diminishing importance and superfluousness. What Today’s Woman has been sold is that the careerism, status seeking and ambitiousness that’s driven men to their sense of happiness-through-accomplishment (with all the prerequisite sacrifices needed to get there) is necessarily the same path to women’s sense of happiness and fulfillment.

But men and women are in fact different, and while the social experiment that is equalism continues to destroy lives by insisting they aren’t, women are coming to find (often too late in life to correct) that happiness for themselves comes as a result of satisfying needs that are innate to their nature as a female. As such, equalism and feminism fluidly redefine what “should be” happiness for men and women – men should always find fulfillment in making women happy in an ‘equalist’ utopia – yet that contentment for women will always be elusive and thus, a need to make men the culprits in that unending oppression of happiness comes into play.

Worst Case Scenario

Virtually every woman I’ve ever come into contact with in my lifetime shared a common mindset – each one subscribes to what I call the ‘worst case scenario’ mindset. I expect this from a mother or matronly relative, maybe even an overprotective sister, but to some degree all (and yes I mean all) women share a sense of risk aversion. That may not be in all aspects of a woman’s life, and certainly there are instances where this can be overridden – usually ones that imply an optimized Hypergamous opportunity – but I find that it’s part of women’s psychological firmware to obsessively want to mitigate risk of loss. Whether that’s risk of injury or resources or something that has a potential for providing her with security, the innate female subroutine is to play things safe.

In an age of mass media and instantaneous communication (women’s domain) this risk aversion gets combined with women’s primary, evolutionarily derived, need for a sustainable long term security and an existence-level sense of doubt. I’ve covered in prior posts about how Hypergamy is rooted in doubt and demands a constant reverifying of its being optimized in a man or a man with whom a woman has the potential of becoming intimate with. What results from this root level doubt and a hindbrain need for security is a continual preoccupation with the Worst Case Scenario.

Every possibility for the worst is thought through, contemplated and anticipated by women. There are very few women known for their genuine optimism or faith in a better outcome than what could possibly be the worst case. Yes, there are women who are saccharine motivational speakers, women’s ministry leaders and “make it a great day” believers in the magic powers of positivity, but even when it is genuine it comes as the result of wanting to mitigate the risks of the worst case scenario for their own (or women’s) lives.

As I wrote in Imagination, a man’s best tool in his Game toolbox is a woman’s imagination. That may be well for Game, but it also comes with the drawback of women’s imaginings of the worst possible thing that could ever happen. Throw women’s evolved sense of solipsism into this mix and it’s the worst possible thing that could happen, to her. On one hand, Dread is useful because of this innately female dynamic, but when you must contend with what amounts to a never ending battery of ‘what if’ doubts and reassurances then you begin to see the downside of that imagination. You begin to understand why women default to blaming men for not providing them with a sustainable happiness.

Women, being the life-bearing, nurture-giving sex with the most to lose in their investment in selecting a mate and gestating a child, have evolved to seek a sustainable security above all else – a security that guarantees her individuated happiness. That conventional, evolved sense of wellbeing used to be dependent upon the provisioning and the excitement that could only be provided by men. This is a subconscious expectation of women. Even women who subscribe to sexual fluidity often seek a similar security from their masculinized dominant partner.

Social Security

As a result of our equalist social narrative, women have been conditioned to believe that they can find this security and happiness in some untapped well they have hidden in their psyche if only they can be Strong and Independent enough to access it. In prior essays I’ve made the case that the ultimate goal of our feminine-primary social order has been to facilitate women’s optimizing Hypergamy by essentially outlawing men’s influence on that process. Every gender-based law that’s come into being since the time of the Sexual Revolution; from sexual consent, to what constitutes sexual harassment, to father’s (lack of) rights, to divorce settlement has been motivated by this deep seated female need for an enduring security. This was a security unique to men, but in an ‘equalist’ paradigm it is no longer required of, nor is it expected to be found in, men.

Yet for all of this handwringing, for all of the great efforts needed to legislate men’s direct or indirect financing of this security, and despite every social dispensation intended to empower women to provide this soul-gnawing need for security, women are still not happy.

The masterful Pook once said that the surest way to make a woman unhappy is to give them everything they want. I recently got into, yet again, another debate about the merits or non-merits of Choreplay and whether the idea of women getting hot for guys who do dishes was really a thing,…or not. This time the spin is that women will cheat on their husbands if they don’t do more chores.

As I was requoting myself for this debate I realized how long the Choreplay dilemma has been playing out – the first time I took it on was 2008. Men are deductive problem solvers. We want to make women happy as a means to getting sex, keeping the peace, sustaining intimacy, security, and just making a woman happy. The problem with that is that nothing a man can do will make a woman happy in the long term. In fact, just the whack-a-mole attempt to intentionally try to make a woman happy is itself a display women read as coming from a man who Just Doesn’t Get It.

The majority of men (Betas) would like nothing more than to sustain a woman’s happiness. They’re taught that relationship are always ‘hard work’ and his work will ultimately never be good enough. Even the most dutiful Beta can’t make a woman happy, but their efforts become a process of him negotiating for a woman’s desire. Whether that’s earning the ‘happiness’ of his mother, his sister, his female co-worker or his wife, the effect is the same.

We’ve made women’s happiness a litmus test for how successful a man or his relationships are. The common refrain of a woman leaving a man due to her being “unhaaaaaapy” is almost a cliché in the manosphere now. But if it’s a cliché it’s because this is the go-to reasoning we’ve heard from pop-psychologists, marriage counselors and mommy bloggers for the 70%+ of divorces initiated by women. We are expected to put a premium on women’s sustained happiness in a feminine-primary social order. Women’s happiness has become the prime directive and the metric for a relationship’s success. Any concern for men’s happiness is either a sign of his weakness or his problematic misogyny.

From Perfecting the Fantasy:

Here’s a secret – there’s no such thing as contentment.

Being content implies that life is static; it’s not, and to be honest, how boring would that be anyway? Life consists of varying states of discontent: why else would you bother doing anything? But the good news is that it’s more fun and more beneficial to manage discontent than to endure contentment (which you can’t anyway since it’s transitory at best). The trick is to understand that there are 2 kinds of discontent – creative and destructive discontent. What you choose to do with that discontent makes all the difference in the world. You will only get what you’ve gotten if you keep doing what you’ve done. Don’t allow yourself to fall back into old destructive habits of dealing with discontent. Don’t bother with anti-depressants and self-help books when a good hard workout at the gym would serve you better.

The truth is I’m always discontent, but constructively so. The minute you can look yourself in the mirror and be happy with what you see you’re sunk. You can always improve, even after achieving things that were once very important and difficult to attain. Happiness is a state of being, it’s in the ‘doing’ not the ‘having done.’ It’s not about endlessly chasing your tail, it’s about being better than you were the day before.

I agree with Gorilla Patriot, women’s default is for unhappiness, but I’d qualify this by saying it’s more of a predisposition of discontent. That is to say there is no real neutral disposition for a woman. Even in a state of indifference, a woman’s conditioned expectation from men will always originate from a preconception of disappointment. The worst case scenario is what is subconsciously planned for to the point that, even a man whom a woman loves and trusts, a woman’s first expectation from him is failure.

A lot of this comes from a lifetime of having male role models portrayed as default failures, social ignoramuses or just ridiculous because of their maleness. Women have had an endless education that only their unique femaleness can solve men’s problems of maleness, and they solve it in spite of themselves. Women are quite literally taught to expect failure, discontentment and unhappiness from men from a very early age.

The great tragedy of this ‘education’ is that it teaches women to empower themselves to find some life satisfaction as a result of their independence from men, but yet they can’t get around the want to find happiness with men. This teaching seeks to create some equalist semblance of happiness based on what men define for themselves as happiness.

They’re taught that a real enduring security is somehow possible in an intrinsically unsafe and chaotic world. So they limit men, they mandate laws and social mores to mitigate the risks that men, in their idealism, would naturally be drawn to take. They keep the kids safe, tell them to walk on one side of the sidewalk, tell them not to jump on the bed, tell them not to ride a bike without a helmet and knee and arm pads, and to prepare for the most damaging possibility imaginable. And men, who’ve always been bigger, more dangerous children to them, must comply with this risk aversion by law or by shame.

Women are unhappy because they expect unhappiness. They’ve been taught that the security they sought in men was a weakness; one they need to compensate for. They were conditioned to feel shame for that need, that masculine comfort, even when they know security is never going to be guaranteed in the best of possible cases. They’re unhappy because they were taught that men’s happiness is better than women’s happiness and that’s the path they ought to follow no matter the sacrifice, no matter the damage to the family. They were taught that feminist pride and equalist hubris were a better substitute for a family – they believed the lie that they would just be ‘happy captives’.